Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin lobbyist knows there’s no language in the genome, channels Berra’s blunder

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
1963 Corvette StingrayFile:1963 Corvette Sting Ray.jpg

First, another blast from the past – Berra’s blunder:

If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people.

– T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119

Absolutely, Dr. Berra, and it cannot be denied by reasonable people that the 1954 Corvette was the son of the 1953 Corvette and inherited his genes. And many generations of Corvettes followed, father to son, father to son, each inheriting the best of the naturally selected genes …

Automotive engineers are liars.

A friend offers this priceless 2007 remark from Joe Felsenstein on why genetic information requires no intelligence:

In this article, I want to concentrate on the main arguments that Dembski has used. With a few exceptions, many of the points I will make have already been raised in these critiques of Dembski — this is primarily an attempt to make them more accessible. Stephen Meyer, who heads the Discovery Institute’s program on ID, describes Dembski’s work in this way: We know that information — whether, say, in hieroglyphics or radio signals — always arises from an intelligent source. …. So the discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin. (Meyer 2006) What is this mysterious “digital information”? Has a message from a Designer been discovered? When DNA sequences are read, can they be converted into English sentences such as: “Copyright 4004 bce by the intelligent designer; all rights reserved”?

Or can they be converted into numbers, with one stretch of DNA turning out to contain the first 10 000 digits of p? Of course not. If anything like this had happened, it would have been big news indeed. You would have heard by now. No, the mysterious digital information turns out to be nothing more than the usual genetic information that codes for the features of life, information that makes the organism well-adapted. The “digital information” is just the presence of sequences that code for RNA and proteins — sequences that lead to high fitness.

File:1965 Corvette Sting Ray.jpg
1965 Corvette Stingray, grandson of '63.

Just like those 1950s Corvettes, it all just sort of happened. And the Darwinism that explains it is mostly paid for under protest by people who don’t believe it. Only natural selection could have brought about all these sweet rackets.

Comments
cannot seem to recognize that the Darwinian mechanism of random errors accumulated by natural selection as an explanation for all of life’s complexity and functionally integrated technology is a completely illogical, mathematically absurd, and empirically falsified hypothesis.
Again, my own limited understanding handicaps me. I was taught that mutations are not "errors", they are instead sources of variation. And that the variation is not correlated with usefulness, so most of the variation isn't very useful. But I would not like to think that my son, who does not look exactly like me and has abilities I never had, is the result of "error". Differences are not "errors", and sometimes they're admirable or desirable. He has far more musical talent than I ever did, and I sincerely hope his children someday have it as well. This is an "error"? It's even possible (it already seems likely) that this talent attracts thei girls. I'm not competent to say whether his musical ability represents a "functionally integrated techology". He's just a boy who picks up music quickly. I don't know why his ability might be considered "mathematically absurd" - the world seems to have a great many people with musical talent. And that talent is pretty obvious. You'd have to be pretty tone-deaf to "falsify" it. Is musical ability heritable? I've read that it does tend to run in familiesDavid W. Gibson
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Some of this confuses me.
If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.
Yep, no question about it. The Corvette, with a few significant exceptions, has changed incrementally. Occasionally, of course, the Corvette has been revamped substantially.
Absolutely, Dr. Berra, and it cannot be denied by reasonable people that the 1954 Corvette was the son of the 1953 Corvette and inherited his genes. And many generations of Corvettes followed, father to son, father to son, each inheriting the best of the naturally selected genes …
Does Berra say this? I always thought that sons (and genes) were biological phenomena. I know that automotive, and maybe other, advertisers borrow biological metaphors from time to time, saying that the latest model incorporates "DNA" or "genes" from other models, but what they're referring to, at best, is lessons engineers learn from what has worked in prior models. They are certainly not saying that automobiles breed! And sometimes, all they mean is that some members of the design team from other models contributed to this one, or maybe that the same company made them.
No, the mysterious digital information turns out to be nothing more than the usual genetic information that codes for the features of life, information that makes the organism well-adapted. The “digital information” is just the presence of sequences that code for RNA and proteins — sequences that lead to high fitness.
This statement seems fairly clear to me. Just as auto advertisers borrow metaphors from biology, so biologists borrow metaphors from computers. Metaphors can be excellent shortcuts in communicating concepts, but surely nobody would consider these metaphors to be accurate descriptions of the underlying mechanisms.
Just like those 1950s Corvettes, it all just sort of happened.
I don't understand this phrase. The underlying mechanisms for both biological inheritance and engineering refinements are well understood. And they are completely different mechanisms. Neither one "just sort of happened", unless this is intended to convey that both automotive engineers and evolutionary biologists are somehow unaware of the principles of their professions. As a programmer, I have taken fairly simple code and extended it, speeded it up, added new features, sometimes for years. This didn't "just happen". I'm left with the impression here that someone is taking two entirely different processes, finding some conceptual similarities at a high level of abstraction, and concluding that the underlying detailed processes must be somehow the same. Am I misunderstanding this?David W. Gibson
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Or can they be converted into numbers, with one stretch of DNA turning out to contain the first 10 000 digits of p? Sorry to be so blunt, but this guy is a miserable clown. Calculating PI is a trivial exercise when compared to the engineering and information processing required to fabricate the simplest protein. Berra’s Blunder is a grand testimony of the transparent illogic employed by Darwinists in a desperate attempt to defend the illogical. I continue to be mystified by the fact that highly intelligent, superbly educated, seemingly reasonable people -- even those with advanced academic degrees (perhaps that explains the atrophy and degeneration of their basic reasoning powers; this seems to be the inevitable result of academic "training" in anything but the hard sciences) -- cannot seem to recognize that the Darwinian mechanism of random errors accumulated by natural selection as an explanation for all of life's complexity and functionally integrated technology is a completely illogical, mathematically absurd, and empirically falsified hypothesis.GilDodgen
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply